UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 4361

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. QUAPRIS CUANTEZ TORAIN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 1:18

- cr - 00226

- NCT

- 1 )

Submitted : July 31, 2020 Decided: August 13, 2020

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. George E. Crump, III , Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin, United States Attorney, Whitney N. Shaffer, Assistan t United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Quapris Cuantez Torain appeals his conviction and 180

- month sentence following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2018). Torain argues that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the district court did not explain that, had the cas e gone to trial, the Government would be required to prove that Torain knew that he had been previously convicted of a felony. See Rehaif v. United States , 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2200 (2019). Torain also challenges his classification as an armed career crimina l under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2018).
In Rehaif , the Supreme Court held that, in order to sustain a conviction under § 922(g), the Government must prove both that the defendant: (1) knowingly possessed a firearm, and (2) knew that he held the relevant status prohibiting his possession. At Torain’s Fed . R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, the district court did not advise Torain of the elements of the offense as set forth in Rehaif

. Because Torain did not move to withdraw his guilty plea, we review his plea challenge for plain error. See United States v. McCoy , 8 95 F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir. 2018). To succeed under plain error review, a defendant must show that: (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. Knight , 606 F.3d 171, 177 (4th Cir. 201 0).
In United States v. Gary , 954 F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2020) , we held that “a standalone Rehaif error satisfies plain error review because such an error is structural, which per se affects a defendant’s substantial rights.” We further found “that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity and public reputation of the judicial proceedings3 and therefore [we] must exercise our discretion to correct the error.” Id . In light of Gary , we find that Torain’s guilty plea and conviction must be vaca ted and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings

. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

* Because the invalidity of Torain’s guilty plea is dispositive of this appeal, we do not address the appropriateness of any sentence imposed based on the plea. See Gary , 954 F.3d at 199 n.2.